Rank: Guest 
|
I have 2 ponds and a lake within the curtilage of a client's workplace. They have 2 life rings (and appropriate signage) around the lake, but nothing around the ponds. The ponds are approx 4 feet deep, 10m long and 8m wide and the age group affected runs from 13 years upwards.
In the 32 years the site has been a working area there has never been an incident. Now an employee (for 28 of the 32 years) has raised the issue of water safety.
Would appropriate signage and additional life rings suffice or would I need to fence off the ponds? I have done an RA and conclude I don't need the fencing.
Views welcome.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Seem to recall that RoSPA have a water safety dept., if it's any use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rich
Never an easy call these types of settings. I would think that an age group of 13+ the controls you have in place are adequate. However, there have been a couple of high profile cases in recent years regarding ponds and signage. Can't recall the case citations at present but you might like to read a summary if someone is good enough to post them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rich
For the main part, I don’t generally agree with the fencing off of ponds etc unless the RA identifies a significant risk to a specific group of people. ALL ‘waterways’, ponds, lakes, rovers, canals, the sea etc carry with them an inherent risk of people falling in a drowning and for the main part the risk is obvious. To place a fence around every pond and along every river bank and the coastline would of course be a total nonsense, but there are cases where some form of fencing, barrier and/or signage may be necessary, perhaps where young children are concerned, and that is a ‘call’ that each and everyone of us has to make. With the limited information available I would suggest that fencing is unnecessary and I would include the reasoning for this within the risk assessment.
I’m not quite sure of the cases that Ray may be thinking of but perhaps Congleton/Tomlinson, but there are others cases that I can’t recall either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree with Phil Rose on this - do we want to live in a world where every amenity is fenced off?
The HSE talk about 'risk/benefit' decision-making - this is great before something happens, but is sometimes lost in the scrabble to apportion blame...if only people could be consistent and give equal weight to such factors after an incident.
Sounds like your risk assessment has it covered, together with the length of time without incident
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It's the Occupiers' Liability Acts (OLA) of 1957 and 1984 that cover this. Under the acts occupiers may seek to discharge some of their duties by putting up warning signs; but 'unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe' the signage will not be considered sufficient.
Depending on who is likely to fall in and given a clean bill of health over the last 32 years I would think that a review of your risk assessment would lead you to the right answer. Capture a few images on your digital camera from the direction of approach to see if the signage is appropriate, file the images with your RA. Consider also the lighting available at likely times of access...following the change in smoking regs are you likely to get smokers wandering nearby on dark evenings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course the OLA only concerns itself with the civil liabilities. Could I suggest that it is (also) ‘covered’ under S2/3 HASAWA, "Workplace", "Management" regs as well.
Although there is a duty under OLA 57 to display notices warning of imminent danger, I would like to think that, depending on the circumstances, obvious hazards would not necessarily require such a notice. I personally don’t believe in warning people of a hazard that is patently obvious. I would be disappointed to see a situation where our general environment is littered with a plethora of notices where they would do little or nothing to mitigate a risk. Possibly, naively, I would like to think that the courts would take a similar line.
I dealt with a case years ago where we were seeking to transfer the ownership of a mere (pond) to a Parish Council. The PC took advice from their insurer (!) who required fencing and warning notices around the mere. I successfully argued against this and the transfer went ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Not sure what the 'smoking regs' and 'smokers wandering nearby on dark evenings has to do with signage and fencing of pools/ponds!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.